Large Study Proves Me Correct

Well, I'm no genius.  I've been tested twice and only got close once!*  Mensa won't have me, but then again, the Unabomber was eligible. 

But I've always been right about Injuries in "Rearfoot Vs. Forefoot Strikers" (there's no such thing as midfoot strikers, unless they are severely deformed).

The largest study to date proves my "edumacated" hunch held since 1987 or so.

“Footstrike Patterns Do Not Influence Running Related Overuse Injuries in U.S. Army Soldiers.”

 RESULTS: The majority of all Soldiers were HS runners (83% v 17% NHS), with no significant difference in FSP distribution by gender (female=232, 85% HS v 15% NHS; male=795, 82% HS v 18% NHS; p =.30). There was no significant difference in the reporting of at least one OI in the past 12 months (15% v 18%, p=.58) between NHS and HS runners. Although women more frequently reported OI than males (27% v 14%, p≤.001), FSP was not related to OI within either sex.

Remember, though, the injuries seen with the two extremes are often different with the injuries seen with forefoot strikers being somewhat more chronic and more resistant to treatment.**

*I haven't really taken the test at all. But it is easy to do if you are so inclined.
**In my 27 years of experience.